loose nuke's blog

The CIA has released nearly 800 pages of newly declassified documents on Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks.

The documents were released in response to an INTELWIRE Freedom of Information Act request for material referenced by the 9/11 Commission. Numerous documents were withheld, and those that were released have been heavily redacted. Despite this, it is highly unusual to receive any material from the CIA in response to a FOIA request, and they provide a fascinating look at the state of the agency's understanding of Al Qaeda over the years.

In a March 12, 2012 FOIA appeal response, the US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) implicitly acknowledged the existence of FBI File 203A-WF-210023, which FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has said contains evidence of top US officials’ complicity in the trafficking of nuclear secrets, arms and drugs, in addition to bribery, blackmail, money-laundering and obstruction of investigation into 9/11. In 2008, the Sunday Times of London reported that the FBI, in response to a different FOIA request, denied the existence of the file.

The January 20, 2008 report by the Sunday Times, FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft, briefly summarized Edmonds’ allegations about the file in this way: “She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.” According to an article by former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, the file name 203A-WF-210023 indicates it’s an “FBI Washington Field Office, Counterintelligence Division, Turkish Unit File.”

When the Times asked Edmonds about FBI File 203A-WF-210023, she said, "The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations." The article goes on to say that, "the FBI responded to a [Liberty Coalition] freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.” No other information was given regarding the latter document.

The amount of U.S. currency circulating outside banks rose sharply in July/August 2001. The growth ran into the billions of dollars, and was concentrated in $100 bills. These large-scale currency movements matter for anyone who cares about learning the truth about 9/11.

Under money laundering and other laws, assets can be frozen and seized in the banking system. Knowing this, parties concerned that their assets might be frozen or otherwise at risk after 9/11 would have had an incentive to liquidate securities and banking accounts beforehand, and withdraw their money in difficult-to-trace ways. This could have happened in U.S. banking and securities accounts, as well as accounts denominated in U.S. dollars outside the United States. Finding the parties responsible for large-scale withdrawals of currency before 9/11 could help identify people aware of, if not responsible for, those events.

November 22, 2013 will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, and significant information is still being suppressed. If certain elements with influence over the government have their way, this information will never be released.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has created a "National Archives Open Government Idea Forum" at ideascale.com for the public to submit, comment on, and vote for ideas. One submission that is gaining popularity is for NARA to: "Create a JFK Records Declassification Project":

The National Archives should create a project to declassify remaining secret JFK assassination records before the 50th anniversary of that tragic event in 2013. The Archives recently established Berlin Wall and Pentagon Papers anniversary projects. Public interest is high in the remaining secret JFK assassination records. Such a project would fulfill President Obama's desire that his administration be the most open administration in the history of the United States. http://naraopengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Create-a-JFK-Records-Declassification-Project/338782-17906

Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government1 free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.

9/11 Questions Bubble Up in the Media

On Friday February 24, Boiling Frogs posted an article titled “Media Sleepwalks, While History is in the Making.” Three articles had come out the week before, one in the London Daily Telegraph and two in the Florida-based Broward Bulldog, raising important new questions about the crimes of September 11, 2001 and the quality of the government’s investigation. In particular, these articles discussed new information and questions coming from former Senator Robert Graham, questions relating to secret documents that Graham described as running at odds with past government assertions in the 9/11 investigation. These three articles also raised new questions about the role of the government of Saudi Arabia.

The Feb 24 Boiling Frogs post discussed those three articles, and noted that there hadn’t been a single article in the mainstream media on the issues they raised, even though a week had gone by. The post then asked if a valid prediction market could be established for the date when the media would wake up.

Political prediction markets have a very interesting history. One of the difficulties in having a successful market, a market that people trust, is related to a similar issue in futures markets. Futures contracts need to be specified carefully and clearly, and remain free of ambiguous legal interpretation.

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

Given the threat to free speech, information and the internet as we know it today, I'm submitting this EFF update regarding the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' or SOPA - if you oppose this bill and haven't called your representatives yet, please do. See this EFF page for contact info and talking points: https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173 - loose nuke:

Proponents of the misguided Internet blacklist legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) — downplay the idea that the overbroad bills could be used for censorship. But one only needs to look at the way existing copyright laws have been abused to know there’s serious cause for concern.

From shocking examples of government censorship without due process through domain name seizure, as we've seen with both Rojadirecta and now with the yearlong saga of Dajaz1.org (which we address in the second post in this series), to bogus DMCA takedowns and actual litigation, the message is clear: the government and corporations have no problem abusing legal process to threaten or shut down legitimate speech.

In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

911Blogger.com supports efforts to establish truth and justice concerning 9/11, including through fact-based research and investigation, and non-violent, sound activism, both within the system and by direct action. However, we are not supporting the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign (its stated goal is to use state ballot initiatives to establish a commission to investigate 9/11 and the aftermath) and we are unlikely to post submissions promoting it, in its current form. People have asked why 911Blogger has not been posting submissions concerning the Campaign; we have not been, due to various concerns that have been expressed by team members and others, which we believe are legitimate. To acknowledge 911Blogger's position on this issue, and in the interest of facilitating discussion of the Campaign, we are posting this critical essay by team member Erik Larson. Our concerns include points made by Larson, but, like all submissions posted at 911Blogger, publication of this essay should not be construed as an endorsement of it by 911Blogger.

We also wish to note that individuals involved in the Citizen's 9/11 Commission Campaign have made important contributions to society by exposing historical truths, such as Campaign founder Mike Gravel and Advisory Board member Cynthia McKinney. As a US Senator in 1971, Gravel read and entered 4100 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. As a US Representative in 2002, McKinney questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers about the 9/11 war games during Congressional hearings. McKinney also chaired the 2004 “9/11 Omissions Hearings” following publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, and the 2005 follow up hearings, The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later – A Citizens Response: Did The Commission Get It Right?, both of which documented important evidence through the testimony of credible witnesses.

The comments section below is open for thoughtful and civil discussion. Any comments made by 911blogger team members should be viewed as reflecting their own opinions, and not as the position of 911blogger.com.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed sanctions and penalties against attorneys involved in bringing forward a 9/11 Truther lawsuit, specifically for frivolous and vexatious appeals and motions. The suit, originally filed by a survivor of the Pentagon attack, accuses various U.S. leaders of conspiring to arrange the September 11 attacks. In addition to learning how hard it can be to convince a court of controversial subject matter, the lawyers discovered something more fundamental: If you’re upset that the judges on a federal circuit panel aren’t buying into your conspiracy theories, it might be wise to refrain from making bold accusations regarding their professionalism in your subsequent submissions—as it turns out, judges do read them and can be rather unamused.

A growing number of former government insiders — all responsible officials who served in a number of federal posts — are now on record as doubting ex-CIA director George Tenet’s account of events leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Among them are several special agents of the FBI, the former counterterrorism head in the Clinton and Bush administrations, and the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who told us the CIA chief had been “obviously not forthcoming” in his testimony and had misled the commissioners.

These doubts about the CIA first emerged among a group of 9/11 victims’ families whose struggle to force the government to investigate the causes of the attacks, we chronicled in our 2006 documentary film “Press for Truth.” At that time, we thought we were done with the subject. But tantalizing information unearthed by the 9/11 Commission’s final report and spotted by the families (Chapter 6, footnote 44) raised a question too important to be put aside:

Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, will remain with the University while serving on the board, which serves as an independent source of advice to the president on the intelligence community's effectiveness in meeting the nation's intelligence needs, and on the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future.

"Philip is a valued colleague, exceptional scholar and highly skilled administrator with a distinguished record of service in government and academia," said Meredith Jung-En Woo, dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. "This appointment reflects his and the University's longstanding commitment to education and public service. We're pleased that he will be able to serve the president and our country in this important role while continuing to oversee the College's graduate academic programs as well as our international initiatives and partnerships. His experience on the president's advisory board will only deepen and enrich his work on behalf of the College."

Zelikow will serve with 13 others, including former U.S. Senators David Boren and Chuck Hagel, who co-chair the board.

"I'm glad to do what I can to help," he said.

Zelikow began his career as a trial and appellate lawyer in Texas, and is a former career diplomat whose posts overseas and in Washington include service on the National Security Council staff of President George H.W. Bush.

His books include "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (written with former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), "The Kennedy Tapes" (with Ernest May), and "Essence of Decision" (with Graham Allison).

In recent years, Zelikow has taken two public service leaves from academia to return full time to government service: in 2003-04 to direct the 9/11 Commission, and in 2005-07 as counselor of the Department of State, a deputy to Rice. He also advises the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's program in global development and is a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The Los Angeles Times examines the staggering sums of money expended on patently absurd domestic "homeland security" projects: $75 billion per year for things such as a Zodiac boat with side-scan sonar to respond to a potential attack on a lake in tiny Keith County, Nebraska, and hundreds of "9-ton BearCat armored vehicles, complete with turret" to guard against things like an attack on DreamWorks in Los Angeles. All of that -- which is independent of the exponentially greater sums spent on foreign wars, occupations, bombings, and the vast array of weaponry and private contractors to support it all -- is in response to this mammoth, existential, the-single-greatest-challenge-of-our-generation threat:

"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.

This article highlights a number of seemingly absurd CIA demands for redactions from Ali Soufan's forthcoming book on the CIA's pre-9/11 intel 'failures' and post-9/11 prisoner abuse, but, imho, the most significant info is buried at the end of the article; the hard cover version of Soufan's book is going to be 448 pgs, while Shane refers to a "600-page manuscript." This is possibly a round number; in any case, at least 152 pgs of material have been cut due to CIA demands. - loose nuke

C.I.A. Demands Cuts in Book About 9/11 and Terror Fight By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — In what amounts to a fight over who gets to write the history of the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath, the Central Intelligence Agency is demanding extensive cuts from the memoir of a former F.B.I. agent who spent years near the center of the battle against Al Qaeda.

The agent, Ali H. Soufan, argues in the book that the C.I.A. missed a chance to derail the 2001 plot by withholding from the F.B.I. information about two future 9/11 hijackers living in San Diego, according to several people who have read the manuscript. And he gives a detailed, firsthand account of the C.I.A.’s move toward brutal treatment in its interrogations, saying the harsh methods used on the agency’s first important captive, Abu Zubaydah, were unnecessary and counterproductive.

Neither critique of the C.I.A. is new. In fact, some of the information that the agency argues is classified, according to two people who have seen the correspondence between the F.B.I. and C.I.A., has previously been disclosed in open Congressional hearings, the report of the national commission on 9/11 and even the 2007 memoir of George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director.